River access law help

[riverdog]

People are tiptoeing over the court findings. HB 141 is not totally overturned and issues are still to be addressed. However the public remains the owner of the waterways and has a right to recreational use thus gutting the main restrictions of HB141 as of the ruling. There is no need for a case by case approach. If the original poster remained in the river which is quite possible with current flows in that section there is no criminal trespass. If on dry land it was unintentional from what he wrote but was trespassing. Doesn't matter when anyone relatives arrived. And if your relatives date back to original settlers on a river I ask when did they take ownership or behave if they owned the river? They never had ownership and if some began to kept people out of the river they frankly were behaving criminally. The US Supreme Court has also held up many times that it is criminal to act if you own the river starting before Utah was even settled by pioneers so is very consistent with the way the Utah Courts have acted. I have read through a summary of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on this issue a couple decades ago. About the only restriction on use of these public waterways I recall was during floods you were still restricted to usually high water mark ie. you couldn't travel or fish on land flooded from the river. Here is the recent court findings in their entirety. It is a bit long but I wish every landowner affected and public that wishes to use our waterways would read to better understand the issue.
http://www.i9studios.com/USAC/2012-05-21...s-Case.pdf
[signature]